real, objective investing help? that's a little harder to find. but here's what i know -- td ameritrade doesn't manage mutual funds... or underwrite stocks and bonds. or even publish their own research. so, guidance from td ameritrade isn't about their priorities. it's about mine. straightforward guidance. that's what makes td ameritrade different. ♪ [ male announcer ] trade commission-free for 60 days. plus get up to $600 when you open an account.

welcome back to sioux city iowa and the republican presidential debate. they are ready for hour number two and we begin hour number two with an important topic, foreign policy. congressman paul, many middle east experts now say iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. judging from your past statements even if you have solid intelligence that iran

was in fact going to get a nuclear weapon, president paul would remove the u.s. sanctions on iran, included those added by the obama administration. so to be clear, gop nominee paul would be running left of president obama on the issue of iran. >> but i would be running with the american people because it would be a much better policy. for you you to say that there is some scientific evidence and some people argueing that maybe in a year they might have a weapon, there is a lot more saying they don't have it. there is no u.n. evidence of that happening. clipper at the -- in our national security department, he says there is no evidence. it is no different than it was in 2003. you know what i really fear about what is happening here? it is another iraq coming. war propaganda going on and we are arguing to me the greatest daneer is that we will have a president that -- daneer is that we wil we -- the greatestr is we will have a president

that will overreact and we will soon bomb iran. the sentiment is very mixed even in israel. the head of the security for israel who just recently retired said that it wouldn't make any sense to do this, to take them he out because they might be having a weapon. i would say that the greatest danger is overreacting. there is no evidence that they have it and it would make more sense if we lived through the cold war which we he did with 30,000 missiles pointed at us we ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going be attacked. that is how we got into the useless is war in iraq and lost so much in iraq. >> congressman paul, the question was based on the premise that you had solid intelligence. you actually had solid intelligence as president paul and yet you still at that point would pull back u.s. sanctions and again as the gop nominee would be running left of president obama on this issue? >> yes, all we are doing it

promoting their desire to have it. the defense minister for israel said that if he were in iran he would probably want a nuclear weapon, too, because they are surrounded for geopolitical reasons. that is an understanding. the fact that they are surrounded this he have a desire and how do we treat people when they have a nuclear weapon? with a lot more respect. what did we do with libya. talked to them and talked them out of their nuclear weapon and then we killed them. it makes more sense to work with people and the whole thing is that nuclear weapons are loaded over there, pakistan and india, israel has 300 of them. we have our ships there. we got to get it in a proper context. we don't need another war. >> understood. quite amake that point dwight lot. i will try one more time. iroiran is reportedly running

exercises on closing passages for global trade. what would the u.s. response be if iran were to take that dramatic step? >> the plans are on the book. all they talk s when are we the west going to bomb iran. why odd. they talk about they don't have a weapon. they don't have a nuclear weapon. why wouldn't they try to send out information there and say you know, if you come and bomb us we might close the straits of hermuth down. the president is already backing off on the sanctions because it will be an economic calamity if you take all of the oil out of europe. he knows these sanctions are overreaching. sanctions are an act of war when you prevent goods and services from going into a country. we need to approach this a little differently. we have 12,000 diplomats in our services. we ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in awhile. >> a reminder again the little friendly beep is when you wrap

up. senator santorum you have a very different thought about the threat from iran. for several years according to u.s. military leaders iran has provided training, funding and lethal arms to jihaddists killing american soldiers in iraq and afghanistan. are those acts of war? >> they have been at war with us since 1979. the ieds that killed so many soldiers, they are manufactured in iran. iran is not any other country. it is a country that is ruled by the equivalent of al-qaeda on top of this country. they are a radical theocracy. the principal virtue according to president ahmadinejad is not predofreedom and opportunity is martyrdom. the idea that the policy with the cold war would work on iran when their principle virtue is

martyrdom, mutual destruction with respect to iran would not be any kind of idea of preventing a war. it would be an inducement to war. their objective is to in fact create a calamity. this is what their theology teaches. they believe it is their mission to take on the west. they don't hate us because of what we do or the policies we have. they hate us because of who we are and what we believe in and we need to make sure that they do not have a nuclear weapon and we should be working with the state of israel right now. we should use covert activity and planning a strike against their facilities and say if you do not open up the facilities and not close them down we will close them down for you. >> governor romney, this week president obama said the u.s. asked iran to give our downed high tech bon drone back.

the iranians have it on display and they have no intention of giving it back. you called the president's response "extraordinarily weak and timid." in your book you write "weakness invites challenges, acts of intimidation, acts of aggression greg and war. >> does timidity and weakness invite aggression on the part of other people? absolutely. a strong america is the best ally peace has ever known. this is the president with the spy drone being brought down he says pretty please? a foreign policy based on pretty please? you got to be kidding. a president who fundamentally believes the next century is the post american century. it has to be the american century. america has to lead the free world. and the free world has to lead

the entire world. the right course under president obama's plans is to shrink our military. thinking somehow if we appease or accommodate the tyrants of the world that the world will be safer. he is wrong. the right course for america is to strengthen our economy, our values and our military. rebuild other navy. modernize our air force. we need 100,000 additional troops in the military. take care of our veterans in the way they deserve. it is time for to us recognize once again, a strong military does not create war. a strong america prevents people from trying to test us around the world. >> congress woman bachmann, there is real concern as you know about growing iranian influence inside iraq. also the deputy prime minister there expressed concerns about the country possibly slipping into civil war. there are any circumstances as president where you you would send u.s. troops back into iraq?

>> well, i think clearly the biggest mistake that president obama has made and there are many when it comes to foreign policy, has been the decision that he made regarding iraq. he was essentially given on a developer is platter victory in iraq and he is choosing intentionally to lose the peace. we all know what is going to happen. we know that iran will be the hedge mon and try to come into iraq and then iraq will essentially have dominance from the field goal t persian gulf e mediterranean. with all due respect to ron paul, i think i never heard a more dangerous answer for american security than the one we he just heard from ron paul and i will tell you the reason why. and the reason -- the reason -- [ applause ] >> the reason why i would say that is because we know without a shadow of a doubt that iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our

ally israel off the face of the map and they have stated they will use it against the united states of america. look no further than the iranian constitution which states uneconpetitive cali their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide calpy. we would be fools to ignore their purpose and their plan. >> congressman paul? >> obviously i would like to see a lot less nuclear weapons. i don't want iran to have a nuclear weapon. i would like to reduce them because there would be less chance of war but to declare war on 1.2 billion muslims and say all muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. yeah, there are some radicals but they don't come here to kill us because they are free and prosperous. do they go to switzerland and sweden? that is absurd. if you think that is the reason

they we have no chance of winning it. cia explained it to us. they come here and they want to do us harm because we are bombing them. what is the whole world about the drone being in iran and we are begging and pleading and how are we going to start a war to get the drone back. why are we flying a drone over iran? why do we have to bomb to many countries? we have bases in 130 countries and we are totally bankrupt. how are you go iting to rebuild a military when we have no money. i think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing, the danger is really us overrehe acting and we need a strong national defense and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war and just carelessly now thing it and starting these wars so often. >> and point would be. can i respond to that? >> go ahead.

>> and the problem would be the greatest underreaction in world history if we have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off the face of the earth and we have an iaea report that just recently came out that said literally iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon. nothing could be more dangerous than the comments that we just heard. >> 30 seconds. >> there is no u.n. report that said that. it is totally wrong on what you just said. >> the ieae report. >> that is not true. they produced the information that led you to believe that but they have no evidence. there is no -- there has been no enrichment of any bombs. >> and if we agree with that, if we agree with that the united states people could be at risk. >> she took my time so i would like to finish. if she thinks we live in a dangerous world she ought to think back to when i was drafted in 1962 with the nuclear missiles in cuba and kennedy calls up and talks to

him and talks tim out of this and we don't have a nuclear exchange and you are trying to dramatize this that we have to go and treat iran like we treated iraq and kill a million iraqis and 8,000 some americans have died since we have gone to war. you cannot solve these problems with war. you can solve the problems if we follow our constitution and go to war only when we declare the war, go in and win them and get them over with instead of this endless fighting and endless attitude that we have enemies all over the world. >> i stand on the side of the american people. >> we have been liberal with our friendly thing. mr. speaker, you have been -- of the united nations. on the topic of palestinian efforts for statehood at the u.n. you said "we don't need to fund a corrupt institution to beat up on our allies. in a gingrich administration would the united states leave the u.n.?

>> no, but we would dramatically reduce our reliance on it and confront certain realities. people talk about a peace process. 11 missiles were fire inside israel last month. last month. over 200 missiles have been fired into israel this year. do you think if we had 11 missiles fire inside the united states we he -- this president he might say gentlemen gee mayd communicate and you would like us more. most americans would say if you are firing missiles at me that might not be a very good gesture, okay. the united nations camps we have helped fund have been training grounds for terrorism. as congress woman bachmann pointed out the last time we he debated she was over there with textbooks that are clearly teaching terrorism that are indirectly funded by the united states through the u.n. we have no obligation to lie and every obligation to tell the truth about how bad the u.n. bureaucracy is and why it ought to be fixed or we ought

to radically cut what we are paying. >> governor huntsman, do you agree? >> i think the united nations serves a useful purpose in the area of peace keeping and some humanitarian work. beyond that, i hate the antiamericannism. i hate the antiisrael sentiment. but let me tell you you what this nation needs and what it is going to get under a huntsman administration. it needs a new foreign policy. we are still trapped a little bit in the cold war mindset. i want to make sure that first and foremost we have a foreign policy. international security strategy that recognizes that we have to fix our core here at home. we are weak. this economy is broken. when we are strong, we project values of goodness. that transform and change people like no military can. liberty, democracy, human rights and free markets. we have got to fix this core

first and foremost if we are going to be effective overseas and that is what i want to focus on. second of all, i want to make sure that -- >> governor huntsman, that is time. >> let me get the second point. second of all i want a foreign policy that is driven by economics first. let me tell you it used to break my heart sitting in the beamcy in beijing the second largest embassy in the world looking at afghanistan with 100,000 troops. we secure the place and china goes in and -- >> two dings in that one. governor perry. given the crim details of the recent united nations report on the syrian regime killing and torturing its own people, thousands of people said to be killed at the hands of the asad regime. at what point should the u.s. consider military intervention there? >> i already called for an overfly zone, no fly zone over syria already. they are iran's partner.

they are attached at the hip. and we have to stand firm with our ally in that region israel. there needs to be no space between the united states and israel and this administration has absolutely bungled. the most muddled foreign policy i have ever remember in my lifetime. whether it was in '09 when we had the opportunity covertly over thely or other ways of helping the iranian citizens as they were trying to overthrow that repressive regime. whether it was working with mubarak and trying to have a moderate come in and release him. and now we have seen this president as mit and newt have talked about asking the iranians to give us back that drone. what we should have done is one of two things. either destroy it or retrieve it. he took a third route which was the worst and the weakest and that is to do nothing.

>> now, to my colleague, neil cavuto. >> i want to move on to energy issues and speaker gingrich i would like to begin with you. as you know, the president has rejected any efforts to tie a payroll tax cut extension with the keystone pipeline and to reopen it and to explore rehe opening it as well. he says that any other way to connect the two would be akin to adding an extraneous issue. given his opposition and the likelihood that the keystone issue could be up in the air for a year or more, how do you recommend republicans deal with this to force the issue? >> you know, neil, i sometimes get accused of using language that is too strong so i have been standing here editing. [ laughter ] >> and i'm very concerned about not appearing to be zany.

[ laughter ] >> but i want to paint a picture for all of us. the iranians are practicing closing the straits. the prime minister already said to the american president if you don't want to build the peopleline to create 20,000 american jobs and bring oil through the united states to the largest refinery complex in the world houston i will put it straight west in canada to vancouverer and ship the oil direct to china so you will lose the jobs, the throughput, 30 or 30 40* years of jobs in houston. the president of the united states cannot figure out and i'm using mild words here utterly irrational to say i'm now going to veto a middle class tax cut to protect left wing environmental extremists in tran to kill american jobs and make us more vulnerable to the iranians and do so in a way that makes no sense to any

normal rational american. [ applause ] >> no oh he fence, sir,, but you didn't answer my question. what would -- what would you do to try to move on this within a year. >> what should the congressional republican ares do. in they should attach it to the middle class tax cuts. send it to the president and force him to veto it. stend it a second time. we had to send welfare reform to bill clinton three times. he vetoed it twice. by the third time, 92% of the country wanted to have welfare reform. he decided to sign it. i would say to the president do you want to look like you were totally out of touch with the american people be my guest but i'm not backing down when we are right and you are totally wrong. [ applause ] >> governor huntsman on the same issue, if you don't mind the delay as you pointed out stands to threaten thousands of jobs. you said in a recent speech up

to 100,000 jobs. the president's supporters say a rush decision could cost the environment a great deal more. what i would like to ask you, governor, is there any condition under which a president huntsman would say the need to prohe text our land trumps the need to provide more jobs? >> it is always going be a balancing act. we have got land that everybody resents and appreciates but the -- respects and appreciates. the job as american people is to fuel our future. we have no choice. our economy has hit the wall. i want to get rid of the heroin like addiction we have based on imported oil. $300 billion transfers every year from this country to a lot of unpredictable and relationships no more than transactional. in order to get to where this country needs to be we need a relationship with canada from which we can draw raw materials. i also want to make sure i'm able as president to disrupt the oil monopoly. there s a one product monopoly. if we are going to achieve

energy independence we have to draw to a multiplicity of natural gas. when are we going to get with the picture and start converting to transportation, converting to manufacturing and electricity and power generation. it is completely within our grasp. it is going to require a president who underand its that delicate balance and is going to be able to go out with an aggressive plan toward energy independence and gets it done for this country. >> congress woman bachmann, you were very critical, congress woman, of the extended shutdown after the bp oil spill that i believe lasted upwards of five, six months in terms of a moratorium. i was wondering, though, congresswoman, if you were president and there were such a disaster, again, what would be an acceptable period for oil

drilling to cease for you to get to the bottom of a problem? >> what we needed to do was find out what the true cause of the problem was and the obama administration wasn't willing to have a true and thoughtful investigation to get to the bottom of it. president obama jumped to he put ans and eeoc put a moratorium that actually hurt the economy more than the original disaster. i wanted to add something on keystone. keystone is extremely important. the pipeline. this is one that would have brought at least 20,000 jobs, a at least $6.5 billion worth of economic activity and if i was president of the united states i wouldn't have taken the decision that president obama did. his entire calculus was based upon his reelection effort because, quite frankly, the radical environmentalists said to president obama you pass keystone and we are not going to do your volunteer door to door work. that is what barack obama has done to this country.

he has put his reelection over adding jobs and making the united states energy independent. i would have made the decision as president of the united states. we would have put keystone online immediately. >> governor perry, you have railed against the special treatment afforded solyndra as have the other candidates here tonight and the tax code incentives for green technology and allowances made nor industry. as texas governor you have afforded the same attention to the oil industry. back in 2003 you signed a bill that reduced the tax paid by some natural gas companies that helped them reap since better than 7 billion north dakota tax savings. i guess what i'm saying is aren't you guilty the same behavior as governor, favoring an industry that you claim this president has favoring the green industry?

>> today is the 220th anniversary of the signing of the bill of rights. and one of those the 10th amendment i like a lot. and the reason is that is because that is how our founding fathers saw this country he set up. where we have these laboratories of i innovation. it should be in the purr are sue and decision making process of a state if they want to put tax policies in place that helps make them be more competitive injuries we also did it for the alternative energy industry and win industry. they came in droves and made texas the number one wind energy producing state in the nation but government shouldn't be picking winners and losers from washington, d.c. that is the difference. if in the states i will promise you terry brandtad in this state he knows how to put regulatory policy in place to

make his state be more competitive and you need 50 states throughout competing with each other and washington out of their hair. >> thank you. coming up, we will ask about border issuesion immigration and a topic that got a lot of attention on twitter. plus some controversial social issues as well. stay tuned.

welcome back to sioux city, iowa. and our republican presidential debate here in northwestern, iowa. these people tend to like it, i think, so far. i think they do. >> i think they to. >> you have the next round of questions on border issues and immigration. >> thank you, bret. the question is for you, governor perry. this topic received a lot of traffic on twitter. you have joined the 57 house republican os who have called for the attorney general of the united states eric holder to resign in the wake of the failed federal gun tracking program operation fast and furious. so far there is no clear proof that mr. holder knew about the controversial aspects of this operation and he points out that he actually helped stop it once it came to his attention. are you and other republicans politicizing that issue as

general holder claims? >> film' the president of the united states and i find out there is an operation like fast and furious and my attorney general didn't know about it, i would have him resign immediately. you cannot -- the president of the united states comes to el paso, texas, this last earlier this year and proclaims that the border of texas and mexico, the u.s. border with mexico is safer than this has ever been. let me tell you, i have been dealing with this issue for 11 years. i sent texas ranger recon team there's. our law enforcement men and women face fire from across the border in the u.s. side from the drug cartels. it is not safe there. our country is at jeopardy. if we are going to be able to defend america from iran, from hezbollah, from hamas, that are using mexico as a border -- as

a way to penetrate into the southern part of the united states venezuela has the largest iranian embassy in the world there. we know what ising. >> on. it is time for this country to have a real conversation about a monroe doctrine again like we did against the cubans in the '60s. >> senator santorum, what say you to the attorney general's claim that the republicans are politte sizing this issue? >> i would agree with governor perry if he was the attorney general under me, i would fire him. should haven't started in the first place. i think governor perry is also right and this is something i have been saying now for many years which is we need to pay much more attention to what is going on in our own hemisphere. not only the largest embacy in venezuela, flights from tehran to damascus and caracas and they stop at a military base

before they come into the civilian base. there are jihaddist training camps in central and south america and they are working with the drug cartels and planning assaults on the united states. that is what we know is going on right now and we doing -- this president has ignored that threat and insulted allies like honduras. embraced chavez and ortega and others in central and south america not promoting our values and interests. we need a brand new initiative that says that we will promote our values in this region and we will stop the spread of terrorism in central and south america. >> governor you romney, last week you said that the 11 million illegal immigrants now in this country must return to their countries of origin before they can apply for legal status. you also said we are not going to go around and round up the 11 million. we would the illegal immigrant is voluntarily leave america just to apply for a chance at

legal status especially when they have your assurance that if they stay put we are not going to round them up? >> let me he tell you how that works. we will have an identification card for people who come here legally. rudy giuliani talked about that. individuals who come here illegally have that card and when they apply for a job they show that to the employer and they must then check it with a system, newt gingrich points out let american express or master card or visa process that, determine if the card is valid or not. people come here legally they have that cord. if employers hire people without the card the employer gets sanctioned just like they do for not paying taxes. you say to people here illegally here today you are not going to be able to work here unless you register and we will give you a transition period of time and then you got to go home and apply for permanent residency here or

citizenship but get in line behind everyone else. my view is people who have come here illegally, we welcome you to apply but you must get at the back of the line because there are millions of people in line right now that want to come here legally. i want those to come here legally. those here illegally have to get in line with everybody else. >> speaker gingrich, is that realistic? >> let me start and say that congress and steve king has just introduced the idea act which would in fact reenforce this model because it would take away all tax deductibility. we disagree some on what you do with long-term people here. i think somebody who has been here 25 years and has family here and has local families supporting them ought to have some kind of civilian certification. let me say on the issue of certification. on day one i would drop all the lawsuits against arizona, south carolina and alabama. it is wrong for the government.

i would propose cutting off all federal aid to any sanctionary city that deliberately violated federal law. and i would begin the process of completing control of the border by january 1, 2014. those steps would begin to fundamentally change the entire behavior towards control of legality in the united states. >> governor huntsman, a recent fox news poll showd that 66% of voters believe that the government should allow a path to citizenship for the illegal immigrants already here in this country. nearly three quarters of latinos agree. given the majorities and a the growing importance of the latino vote in the general election, does the republican presidential candidate need to take a more moderate approach on this issue if he hopes to defeat president obama? >> i think the republican candidate has to speak based on our values, the values of the republican party. limited government. progrowth. these are the things that the hispanic and latino pop labs

are going to be looking for. you don't need to pander. we need to be who we are. in terms of immigration and illegal immigration, this president has so screwed up this economy nobody is coming any more. there is nothing to come for. there is not a problem today. take a look at the numbers coming across. the numbers it was posted the other day low nest four decades. so i say we have got to secure the border, of course, we have got to deal with the 11 or 12 million people here but let's not lose sight of the fact that legal immigration is an engine of growth for this country. half of the fortune 500 companies in this country today were founded by immigrants. we have lost probably, well, our market share of travel and tourism has gone from 7% to 12% our our visa system istem is so screwed up. look at the department of homeland security and completely remake the way people are moving back and forth. how we are dealing with the movement of people and immigration. this is an economic development

opportunity and we are missing it. >> chris wallace has the next round of questions. >> thanks, bret. governor romney you have changed your position in the last ten years on abortion, on gay rights, on guns. you say keeping an open mind is a strength but some your critics say that every one of these moves has been to your political advantage. when you were running in massachusetts you took liberal positions. running now as president you take more conservative positions. is that principle or is it just politics, sir? >> i begin by taking exception with your list there. >> which one? >> gay rights. i'm firmly in support of people not being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation. at the same time i oppose same-sex marriage. that has been my position from the beginning. with regards to abortion i changed my mind. i had the experience of coming in to office and running for governor and saying i will keep the laws as they exist in the state and they were pro choice

laws so etextively they were prochoice. i had a bill come to my desk that would have created new embryos for the purpose of destroying them. i studied them in some depth and concluded i could not sign on to take human life. i vi vetoed that bill. i went to the boston globe and described why i'm prolife. every decision i have taken as governor was taken on the side of life. i'm formally prolife. i learned over time like ronald reagan and george herbert walker bush and others my experience has told me that sometimes i was wrong. where i was wrong i may try to correct myself. >> you say the one issue i was wrong on was gay rights. correct, sir? >> i don't recall the whole list. >> abortion, gay rights and guns? >> i always aah sported the second amendment and we had a piece of legislation that came to our desk that provided an assault weapon ban. the gun lobby favored it

because it did things that the gun lobby wanted. work with them bedecided to change the bill. you can sigh i have changed my position on that but i have been progun and continue to be progun. >> if i may, sir,, in 1994 when running for the senate you you wrote a letter to the log cab bin republicans in which you said i'm more convinced than ever before as we seek full equality for america's gay and lesbian citizens i will provide more effective leadership than my opponent who was ted kennedy. in 1994 not only an assault weapons ban but also a five day waiting period and in 2002 when running as governor you said you supported the tough gun control laws in massachusetts and then as you say in 2004 you also signed an assault weapons ban. you are still more of a champion of gay rights than ted kennedy was? >> i think you just said what i said. do i not believe -- i do not

believe in discriminating against people based upon their sexual orientation. i had a member of my cabinet who was gay. i didn't ask justices that i was looking to appoint rather people who are applicants for job hass their sexual orientation was. i believe as a republican i had the potential to fight for antidiskrame nation in is way that would be better than senator kennedy as a democrat who was expected to do so. at the same time, chris, in 1994 and throughout my career i said i oppose same-sex marriage. marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. protect the advantagity of marriage and sanctited y of life. >> senator santorum, you have campaigned on social issues as much or perhaps more than any other candidate on this stage. are you persuaded that governor romney has made these changes or what he says in some cases are not changes based on principle and not political ex-speedence?

>> governor romney when was governor of massachusetts was faced with a supreme court decision that said that traditional marriage was unconstitutional. in the court decision the court said that they did not have the poured concreter to change the law in massachusetts and rule same-sex marriage legal. why? because in the massachusetts constitution it states specifically that only the governor and the legislature can change marriage laws. governor romney, the court then gave the legislature a certain amount of time to change the law. they did not. so governor romney was faced with a choice. go along with the court or go along with the constitution and the statute. he chose the court. and ordered people to issue gay marriage licenses and went beyond that. he personally as governor issued gay marriage licenses. i don't think that is an accurate representation of his position of saying tolerance versus substantively changing the laws. i have had a strong consistent track record of standing up for the values of this country not

discriminating. i had a no discrimination policy in my office. we are not talking about discrimination. we are talking about changing the basic values of our country. >> governor romney, 30 seconds to respond, sir. >> that is a very novel understanding of what our supreme court of massachusetts did. i think everybody in massachusetts and the legal profession in massachusetts and my legal counsel indicated that the supreme court of massachusetts determined that under our constitution same-sex marriage was required. and the idea that somehow that was up to me to make a choice as to whether we had it or not was a little unusual. we got together with our legislature and i fought leading an effort to change -- to put in place a constitutional amendment in massachusetts to overturn the court's decision to make marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. this is something i battle in the year i had after their decision i fought it every way i possibly can. i went to washington, testifying in favor of a federal amendment to define marriage as a relationship

between a man and a woman. >> time, sir. >> i want to make it clear i have been a champion of protecting traditional marriage. that continues to be my view. if i somehow missed some where i'm happy to get corrected but that is something that i feel very deeply. >> congress woman bachmann you say that speaker gingrich has a "inconsistent record on life and single out comments that he made recently that life begins with the implantation of a fertilized egg, not at conception. what is your concern? >> well, my concern is the fact that the republican party can't get the issue of life wrong. this is a basic part of our party. just last night we gathered in des moines to talk about this issue because it is that crucial to our party. and one of the concerns that i have is that when speaker gingrich was speaker of the house he had an opportunity to defund planned parenthood and he chose not to take it. that is a big issue. and also i think even more troubling when was in washington, d.c. he made an

affirmative statement that he would not only support but he would campaign for republicans who were in support of the barbaric procedure known as partial birth abortion. i could never do that. and, as a matter of fact, george will asked the question of speaker gingrich, he said this, he said is it a virtue to tolerate infantacide. this is a seminal issue. are it is something that we can't get wrong and as president of the united states i will be 100% prolife from conception until natural death. >> speaker gingrich? sometimes congresswoman bachmann doesn't get her facts very accurate. i had a 98.5% right to life voting record in 20 years. the only -- >> go ahead. i'm -- >> the only difference that was

they didn't like the initial welfare reform bill which every other conservative said had nothing in it on abortion period. that is the only one in 20 years. i believe that life begins at conception. the conversation we were having which was an abc interview i was frankly thinking about proposing a commission to look at fertility clinics because i think there is a challenge with what happens to embryos who i think should be regarded as life because by definition they have been conceived. i'm against any kind of experimentation on embryos and my position on life has been very clear and very consistent. >> i want to ask you a direct question if i may, speaker, now, that was is your rebuttal to congressman bachmann. >> can i have a rebuttal forgetting my facts wrong? >> absolutely,. >> this isn't just ones. i think it is outrageous to continue to say over and over through the debates that i don't have my facts right when, as a matter of fact, i do. i'm a serious candidate for

president of the united states and my facts are accurate. speaker gingrich said that he would actively support and campaign for republicans who got behind the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. this is not a small issue. this is a big issue and i think george will was right when asked that question what virtue is there in tolerating infantacid. >> we are are way over time so i'm just going to ask you for 30 seconds, sir, to respond on that specific issue. >> what i said on that particular issue you it i wouldn't go out and try to punch republicans. i don't see how you are going to govern the country if you are going to run around and decide who you are going to purge. twice when i was speaker we moved the end of partial birth abortion. clinton vetoed it i have consistently opposed partial birth abortion. i would like to see us go much

further than that and eliminate abortions as a choice and i said as president i would defund planned parent hood and shift the money to pay for adoption services to give young women the choice of life rather than death. >> thank you,. >> and ronald reagan famously escaped spoused his 11th commandment thou shall not. >> thank you very much. >> regarding federal reserve. >> thank you very much. let me finish this question. we are running out of time. >> ronald reagan famously escaped spoused the 11th commandment, thoushalt not speak ill of another republican. to varying degrees you all broke than vow. how do you you balance, on the one hand, trying to win the nomination with on the other side not weakening the eventual nominee to the point where he or she is less electable than president obama down the road. senator santorum? >> we have a responsibility to

vet the candidates. i have been at 350 town hall meetings. i have been kicked hard by a lot of iowans but the positions i hold and that is the process. the process is find out who has the best record. who is the person that can have the consistency of going out there and fighting for the principles that we believe in. because let me assure you the other side is going to kick very, very hard and we have to have someone who can stand up for it, fight and hold to those convictions deep so they can fight the good fight in the fall and win this presidency. >> governor perry? >> yeah, there is a -- as a matter of fact, i think that was the republican chairman not ronald reagan that actually said that. >> he escapehe espoused it. >> indeed, did i. there is an nfl player who said if you don't get your tail kicked every now and then you are not playing at a high enough level and i want to give all of y'all credit for letting me play at a high enough level and for training me the way that you have.

>> governor romney? >> we can handle it and there is nothing that has been said by these folks on the stage about me that i'm not going hear 100 times from president obama. he is going to have what a billion dollars to go after me or whoever the nominee s. we are going give each other what we need to for people to understand who we are. let's not forget in. every day remember that time and time again this is president obama we have got to be talking about. he has unveiled himself as a president that is not the right person to lead this country. >> speaker gingrich. >> i think it is clear if you look at my ads and my website and how i have operated in the debates that while i reserve the right to correct attacks against me, overall i have tried very hard to talk about very big solutions is to go to the american people with the communication about what do we need to do and i said consistently these are all friends of mine. any of these folks would be better than barack obama in the white house. any of them would be great in the next administration.

our only opponent is barack obama and we need to come out of this process remembering beating him is what we collectively have to do. >> congressman paul? >> you know, the media has a responsibility and we have a responsibility and i think exposing our opponents to what they leave in and their flip flops, i think the reason maybe that we had to do more this year is maybe the media is messing up and they haven't asked enough questions that we have to fill in and ask the questions and get this information out. so i think it is a responsibility on us. i think there should be lines drawn. i think there are some things below the belt. i don't think -- i don't like demagoguing and distortion is and taking things out of context. they they disagree on important issues we should expos it. >> congressman bachmann? >> ronald reagan also route clare detroit opponents in his primaries as well and famously asked the question in 1980 are

we better off today than we were four years under jimmy carter and i think the rye public is in far worse shape today under dobbs barack obamas leadership. who will take barack obama on toe to toe and hold him accountable and i think that i will be the best one to do that on the stage. >> governor huntsman? >> i actually worked for ronald reagan and i think he would have been the first to stand up and say debate is good. about must be respectful and it must be rigorous. a rigorous debate will lead to greater trust. and the one thing this nation needs desperately today is heightened trust in our institutions, in our tax code, in our wars abroad, in congress, toward wall street. i'm here to tell you that this kind of debate over time is going to elevate the trust level in whomever makes it out as the nominee he and that will allow us to beat barack obama. thank you. >> that is it for your debate

tonight. thank you all very much. our thanks to the candidates, their staffs, the iowa republican party and to all of the great people here in sioux city and, of course, in iowa. they could not have been more hospitable. our next debate is in south carolina january 16. after the holidays back here in iowa for extensive coverage of the caucuses and then in new hampshire for the primary. stay with fox news channel, america's news headquarters, all the way through the conventions, the general election and, of course, the inauguration in 2013. post debate analysis is on the way. keep it here. thank you.

opposed to others. she went right after this them. strong attack on him at the end upon late term abortion. then there was interesting ron paul who i thought was

impressive in resisting the mob on judges, but then he did a lot on nukes he was off the rails. i thought it had all the elements we have seen in this campaign, romney, neutral. gingrich, up and down. bachmann, strong. reasserting herself and paul wacky and yet impressive at times. ron, your thoughts. >> if you make a judgment right now. you would say we are down to a three-man field. the people left standing would be paul, would be obviously gingrich, romney and i think perry. i think perry was a very memorable tim tebow analogy is still around. he was self-deferential about what was going on with his ability in the debate. gingrich was moving some

momentum in some of the polls. after tonight he regained it. he had the crowd on his side and the discussion about the pipeline and discussion about the judges. i didn't see romney take him out is what we anticipated and the argument about conservative gingrich managed to hold his own tonight. that counts a lot going towards the january 3rd caucus. >> brett: thank you very much. and now to my fantastic colleague. your thoughts. >> you know, i was impressed with michele bachmann. i was also impressed with governor perry. he really has improved in these debates debate. >> i think the two big winners were michele bachmann, rick perry. i think ron paul, you know, look his supporters love him but that stuff about iran is going to be touch for a lot of conservative >> i think a l